22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

Oh, so now we're down to just ANY NUMBER written in God's Word could be just an imaginary expression!

So the Ten Commandments, really don't mean TEN Commandments afterall? How could the Israelites not know?

Your false Amill assumptions about numbers are truly silly.

How about answering these simple questions instead of avoiding them?

 

[Timtofly]

No it does not. Prove it.

Isaiah 65:23

"They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."

Children come from somewhere.

 

[WPM]

Gah! I couldn’t follow that. Here’s my translation.
20 “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!

To me, this is ample evidence that a jump backwards has been made that we weren’t alerted to and that it’s talking of a greatly improved time and a period once again where men live hundreds of years but still not yet the very end, where death, the last enemy, is done away with by being thrown into the lake of fire.
So it begins by talking of the new heavens and earth but it has markers that show a jump backward must have been made.

I have to disagree. I refer you back to the literal rendering of the passage that i presented. There is only one NHNE, and it is perfect. There is no millennium mentioned there. You have to force it into the text.

 

[Davy]

You duck every issue because Premil is devoid of biblical support. The classic old adage is true: If you cannot attack the message attack the messenger.

You are so... funny, just pushing one lie on top of another.

I'm not the one ducking all the Scripture evidence for Christ's future reign with His elect that is written in the REST of God's Word. YOU are the one ducking that, and you are SCARED of those Scriptures in the rest of God's Word.

BTW, there is no such word as "ain't"!

Try the Oxford English Dictionary. It is in there, as also in many other English dictionaries. And I will use it freely if I so want, so who are you to look down upon people that use it?

 

[WPM]

I have countered the baloney your Amill false believes very well here so far. Kind of makes you angry, doesn't it?

When are you going to cover the timing for the Zechariah 14:16-19 verses?

When are you going to cover the timing of the Matthew 25:31-33 verses?

When are going to cover the timing of Jesus reigning over the nations with a rod of iron per the Psalms 2, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 19:15 Scripture?

You have addressed nothing. I suspect you know that by your frustrated and offensive language. You present these passages as support for your opinion of Rev 20 yet show us nowhere where they mention some supposed future millennium.

I have no difficulty addressing Zechariah 14:16-19 Matthew 25:31-33, Psalms 2, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 19:15, all of which reinforce the Amil position. But the burden of proof is with you to 1st show they support Premil. You are the one making the claims.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I don't make up stuff. That is what those whom you follow do.

You can't debate all those Scriptures outside Revelation 20 that point to the events Revelation 20, so why not admit the charlatans you heed failed to prepare you for that.

Bad form brother.

 

[Davy]

Isaiah 65:23

"They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."

Children come from somewhere.

No flesh being born after Christ's coming on the 7th Trumpet and 7th Vial. This flesh world time will be over.

Like Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, those of the resurrection do NOT marry, nor take in marriage, but are AS the angels of God in Heaven. The "spiritual body", which is the body type of the future, is not a body type for this present world.

Thus those Old Testament references about birth and children in that future time are actually 'expressions'.

This reveals that you fail to distinguish the difference in God's Word about the timings for events written in His Word. It shows LACK of Bible study. And that is how the deceived wind up wrapped in men's false traditions.

 

[Davy]

Bad form brother.

Good form, because I am not afraid to be a little salty and make a stand. Neutrality is death per God's Word, it's what Jesus called being lukewarm.

 

[Davy]

How about answering these simple questions instead of avoiding them?

I did show how you misinterpret numbers. You only show how 'you' wrongly interpret every mention of a "thousand" in God's Word to be a metaphor.

 

[WPM]

I did show how you misinterpret numbers. You only show how 'you' wrongly interpret every mention of a "thousand" in God's Word to be a metaphor.

Please note, Revelation does not say “one thousand” as you are suggesting but “a thousand.” The term “one thousand” is only found once in Scripture in Isaiah 30:17. The phrase “a thousand” is repeatedly presented in Scripture as a symbolic phrase to describe a large undefined number. 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 are even number that are regularly employed by the Holy Spirit to denote a complete figure, number or period.

The term “a thousand” is used continually throughout the Word as a generalization or a round figure for “a lot” or “a long time.” It should therefore not be considered as a wooden figure. Scripture repeatedly uses round figures to describe a general idea or a spiritual concept rather than a literal wooden number. Numbers like one, ten, a hundred, a thousand and ten thousand are a case in point. They are constantly employed to present a complete or a non-literalistic indeterminate figure, number or period.

 

[Davy]

You have addressed nothing. I suspect you know that by your frustrated and offensive language. You present these passages as support for your opinion of Rev 20 yet show us nowhere where they mention some supposed future millennium.

My expressions only show how idiotic that Amill thinking is. I can understand how some can misinterpret some things in God's Word, but not things like Amill proposes, which is truly idiotic. Amillennialism holds that TODAY we are in the Revelation 20 millennium. It proposes that Christ is in His Kingdom already today, and is ruling from Heaven.

What is Amillennialism?

So actually, you are going even farther into men's doctrines with your amill theories.

I have no difficulty addressing Zechariah 14:16-19 Matthew 25:31-33, Psalms 2, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 19:15, all of which reinforce the Amil position. But the burden of proof is with you to 1st show they support Premil. You are the one making the claims.

Yeah, you do have difficulty in that, because NONE of those Scriptures do anything to reinforce the Amill position. They reinforce the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 being literal.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

I think…most of those are probably using a thousand as a very great number rather than an exact number. But regarding the thousand years, there is a place where it three times, at least, says “one thousand years” and I think that’s ample evidence that it’s actually a thousand rather than an unspecified great number.

I notice, at least, that you didn’t include the verse this time of a thousand years being like a day to God and a day being like a thousand years. I assume you may have seen it is a weakness in the whole of the systematic eschatology you chose to use half the verse one way and not address the other half in the same manner? This shows me that you can face up to the weaknesses in your chosen systematic eschatology. That makes you someone I think I can talk with.

 

[WPM]

I think…most of those are probably using a thousand as a very great number rather than an exact number. But regarding the thousand years, there is a place where it three times, at least, says “one thousand years” and I think that’s ample evidence that it’s actually a thousand rather than an unspecified great number.

I notice, at least, that you didn’t include the verse this time of a thousand years being like a day to God and a day being like a thousand years. I assume you may have seen it is a weakness in the whole of the systematic eschatology you chose to use half the verse one way and not address the other half in the same manner? This shows me that you can face up to the weaknesses in your chosen systematic eschatology. That makes you someone I think I can talk with.

To insist on a literal rendering, this word needs prefixed by a number to denote exact value. However, in the case of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20 no number precedes the word chilia thus leaving it indefinite. There are no grounds therefore to insist it represents a literal “one thousand” and no proof that we are looking at one thousand years. It simply doesn’t state such. Notwithstanding, there is a noun meaning "a thousand,” in the sense of a (singular) group of 1000: “chilias.” This is used, in the plural, for phrases in Scripture like “the number of the men were five thousand.”

 

[Timtofly]

I have to disagree. I refer you back to the literal rendering of the passage that i presented. There is only one NHNE, and it is perfect. There is no millennium mentioned there. You have to force it into the text.

That is what the scoffers said in 2 Peter 3. That there has been no change since creation. Peter pointed out there was a different heaven and earth before the Flood. At the Second Coming God will restore the earth to pre-Flood conditions. That is Isaiah's new heaven and earth. Peter pointed out water changed it the first time, now fire will change it back.

For Amil to work, you have to rip out birth and death from Isaiah 65. So no one is forcing anything into the text that is not already there. Of course the word 1,000 is not mentioned. There is no length of time mentioned before it would exactly happen either. They were literally looking for the new heavens and earth in the first century. That was 1900 years ago. God does not have to state every Millennium, and what takes place in each 1,000 years in every prophecy. Saying it won't happen is trying to prove a negative.

Exodus 20:8-11 is as clear as mud to some of you all.

 

[Davy]

Please note, Revelation does not say “one thousand” as you are suggesting but “a thousand.”

So now we have to re-do the English language everywhere the article 'a' is used which is in the SINGULAR tense?

So does the word 'singular' mean 'one', or 'two', or 'three', in your educated view? (the English article 'a' means 'one' brethren. When we say, "I bought a drink," we are not talking about a six pack).

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Please note, Revelation does not say “one thousand” as you are suggesting but “a thousand.” The term “one thousand” is only found once in Scripture in Isaiah 30:17. The phrase “a thousand” is repeatedly presented in Scripture as a symbolic phrase to describe a large undefined number. 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 are even number that are regularly employed by the Holy Spirit to denote a complete figure, number or period.

The term “a thousand” is used continually throughout the Word as a generalization or a round figure for “a lot” or “a long time.” It should therefore not be considered as a wooden figure. Scripture repeatedly uses round figures to describe a general idea or a spiritual concept rather than a literal wooden number. Numbers like one, ten, a hundred, a thousand and ten thousand are a case in point. They are constantly employed to present a complete or a non-literalistic indeterminate figure, number or period.

okay, fair. I won’t even go look it up. I’ll take your word for it that it says “a” rather than “one.” I seem to recall (at least in my translation) that in one of those 3 instances it says “the thousand years” But it’s repeated three times and I think that’s evidence.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Children come from somewhere.

Correct. The stork brings them! :cool:

 

[Davy]

To insist on a literal rendering, this word needs prefixed by a number to denote exact value. However, in the case of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20 no number precedes the word chilia thus leaving it indefinite. There are no grounds therefore to insist it represents a literal “one thousand” and no proof that we are looking at one thousand years. It simply doesn’t state such. Notwithstanding, there is a noun meaning "a thousand,” in the sense of a (singular) group of 1000: “chilias.” This is used, in the plural, for phrases in Scripture like “the number of the men were five thousand.”

So now we must MODIFY God's timing per your view?

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Must be a very real Truth there if Peter told us to not be ignorant of that.

One day is with The Lord as a thousand years.

That is His timing relation, not ours, and it is meant literally, for Apostle Peter wouldn't be commanding us to not be ignorant of that if he were just giving an expression.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Good form, because I am not afraid to be a little salty and make a stand. Neutrality is death per God's Word, it's what Jesus called being lukewarm.

Tsk. You’re making this a life and death matter. Whether a man has received the Holy Spirit is a life and death matter, not this.

 

[WPM]

My expressions only show how idiotic that Amill thinking is. I can understand how some can misinterpret some things in God's Word, but not things like Amill proposes, which is truly idiotic. Amillennialism holds that TODAY we are in the Revelation 20 millennium. It proposes that Christ is in His Kingdom already today, and is ruling from Heaven.

What is Amillennialism?

So actually, you are going even farther into men's doctrines with your amill theories.




Yeah, you do have difficulty in that, because NONE of those Scriptures do anything to reinforce the Amill position. They reinforce the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 being literal.

No. Not men's doctrines, biblical Christianity.

Christ ushered in the kingdom of God when He came. Jesus said in Matthew 11:12, “from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth (biazo) violence, and the (biastes) violent take it by force.”

Jesus said, in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man (biazo) presseth into it.”

We should immediately note: for men to be able to press into the kingdom and for it to suffer violence it must already exist. The Greek word biazo here means to force, to crowd oneself into, or to seize. The kingdom of God is shown here to be a present reality that the righteous enter upon salvation. This has been the case since John the Baptist. The spiritual kingdom Christ brought was very-much alive and active from the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry.

Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Jews missed their promised Messiah when He came. He just didn’t fit their expectation of who and what the Messiah was to be. Also, they had an erroneous political racial perception of what the kingdom was. They had a carnal earthly view of Messiah and His kingdom. They believed that the first thing He would do was subjugate all national Israel’s enemies, starting with the Romans. When Christ appeared at His first advent, the Jews imagined He would reinstate the now defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation, restoring their ancient borders. The only problem was: they had a defective hyper-literalist understanding of Old Testament prophesies and a misconception of how the kingdom would look.

Matthew 3:1-2 records, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken or ‘is made near’ or ‘approaches’).”

Matthew 4:12, 17 records, “when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee…From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken).”

Mark 1:14-15 records, “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand (or eengiken).”

Jesus told the disciples as the kingdom advances, “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken)” (Matthew 10:7).

The kingdom of God exists wherever the king – the Lord Jesus Christ – exercises His spiritual jurisdiction. His kingdom embodies all those who possess the indwelling Holy Spirit – those who are born-again of the Spirit of God. Christ’s kingdom is therefore found wherever there are citizens of that Kingdom.

In John 3:3 Jesus declared: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

And in John 3:5 He says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

When someone gets saved they enter into the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual kingdom and incorporates the whole domain over-which the Lord Jesus Christ exercises spiritual control. This kingship refers to the whole realm in which the rule of man becomes the rule of God; it is the area where the law of God and of righteousness are pre-eminent.

We experience the kingdom of God through supernatural birth from above where we are supernaturally changed from a child of darkness to a child of God. Be assured, we cannot change ourselves. It must be a new birth.

One can only “see” and “enter” the kingdom of God by grace through faith. None of us can earn it. None of us deserve it. Before you pat yourself on the back, remember even faith is a gift from God.